In Re Term of Parental Rights as to H.B.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to H.B. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.B. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0180 FILED 05-26-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JS520869 The Honorable David J. Palmer, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL The Law Offices of Robert Casey, Phoenix By Robert Ian Casey Counsel for Appellant Barreda Law, PLLC, Gilbert By Bonnie Platter Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Joseph Ramiro-Shanahan PLLC, Scottsdale By Jessica Elizabeth Strain Counsel for Appellee Child, H.B.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.B. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Andrew Gaona delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined. G A O N A, Judge: ¶1 Cheyenne B. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to H.B. Mother doesn’t challenge the juvenile court’s legal conclusions that Kyle F. (“Father”) proved a statutory ground for termination and that termination was in H.B.’s best interest. She also doesn’t challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those findings. She argues only that we should reverse because the juvenile court: (1) violated Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 353 by not ”identif[ying] the ultimate facts supporting its legal conclusions”; and (2) relied on an erroneous factual finding. ¶2 Neither argument convinces. The juvenile court’s order contains sufficient factual findings to support the termination of Mother’s parental rights. And although that order included one erroneous factual finding, its inclusion was harmless. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s order. See Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 479 ¶ 32 (2023). ¶4 Mother and Father are the biological parents of H.B., born in 2019. Mother is also the biological parent of H.B.’s sibling, born a few years after H.B. (“Sibling”). ¶5 Sibling died in July 2023; the autopsy identified injuries to Sibling’s head, torso, genitals, and abdomen. Maricopa County’s medical examiner concluded a probable febrile seizure from respiratory viruses caused Sibling’s death. Gilbert Police and the Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) investigated, and Mother gave differing accounts to friends and family about when and how Sibling died. ¶6 After taking emergency custody of H.B., Father filed a petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights to H.B. He alleged 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.B. Decision of the Court that Mother: (1) neglected to protect H.B. and Sibling resulting in Sibling’s death; (2) lacked capacity to protect H.B.; and (3) had a history of drug and alcohol abuse. ¶7 The juvenile court held a contested termination hearing over eight days. It heard testimony from law enforcement, Maricopa County’s medical examiner, a private medical expert, Mother, Mother’s then- boyfriend (now her husband) Bailey, and Father. The juvenile court also admitted various exhibits, including the investigation reports completed by Gilbert Police and DCS regarding Sibling’s death, and an expert witness report on the cause of Sibling’s injuries and death. ¶8 After considering all the evidence, the juve